A Review of Ethical Systems

Ethics has to do with norms governing human actions. So far, we have discussed that these
ethical norms are founded and derived from practical reason which gives rise to a command or a
dictate embodied as a set of rules or what is called Natural law. Now some ethical systems derive
ethical norms and principles differently from how we have conceived of it so far. We will now
discuss some these different conceptions of ethical norms. We will focus mainly on those
derivations based on a group of so-called teleological ethics. This ethical theory is said to judge
actions in the light of their consequences, and hence is also called Consequentialism, as distinct
for deontological ethics, which judges the moral quality of actions independently of their
consequences. It has been argued, however, that these distinctions are misleading because ethical
reasoning is not necessarily mutually exclusive as far as ends and consequences are concerned.
We will tackle these ethical systems not in the light of their being teleological or deontological but
insofar as they compare with the Personalist ethics of the strains of Aristotle, Aquinas, and
Wojtyla.

Consequentialism
As a general term, Consequentialism is the ethical theory which holds that the rightness or
wrongness of an action depends on the consequences that an action brings. While this may hold
some partial truth, Consequentialism as an ethical theory does not make any distinctions between
consequences which are constitutive of the action and consequences which are merely incidental
or accidental. What it proposes as a standard for evaluating the morality of an action is the net
good which will accrue from the doing of an action. This means that it proposes to weigh all the
possible consequences of an action and if the net effect is good, then that action would be morally
good. Offhand, this is very hard to do because one could not possible foresee all the possible
consequences of an action. Secondly, as we said, this theory does not distinguish between
consequences which are constitutive of an act, and those that are not. The former affects the
morality of an action while the latter may not. For example, if I were to lie to my mother about my
whereabouts last night because I had gone to a place she had prohibited me from going, among the
possible consequences would be the following: I would be constrained to forever hide this fact
from her, and hence possibly add more lies to cover up; I may end up with a guilty conscience (or
not at all); if she finds out, I may be grounded; my lying goes against the nature of communication,
which is to express the truth about things. Of all these consequences, only the last one is
constitutive of the action.
Consequentialism has different shades and nuances, since consequences can greatly vary.
Here, we will tackle the specific application of Consequentialism in the theories of Utilitarianism
and Hedonism.
Utilitarianism

In general, Utilitarianism is a kind of Consequentialism which considers consequences

which bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Classical Utilitarianism
finds its roots in the thought of John Stuart Mill who conceived that actions have the character of
utility when these actions promote happiness.1 Mill’s ideas in turn find their root in the thought of
Jeremy Bentham who defined utility as a property in any object, whereby it tends to produce
benefit, advantage, pleasure, good or happiness or to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil,
or unhappiness.2 The word utility comes from the Latin utilis, which means useful. In effect,
Utilitarianism is a modern form of the Hedonistic ethical theory in the sense that it advocates
pleasure as a gauge for moral goodness or moral evil.

The term utilitarianism did not come into vogue until it had been adopted by Jeremy
Bentham (in 1776, he formulated his celebrated utilitarian principle, "the greatest happiness of the
greatest number"). At its core, utilitarianism believes that we ought to do what produces the
greatest overall good consequences for everyone, not just for me. We determine this by examining
the various courses of action open to us, calculating the consequences associated with each, and
then deciding on the one that produces the greatest overall good consequences for everyone.

This is a very demanding moral doctrine for two reasons. First, it asks people to set aside
their own individual interests for the good of the whole. For example, the presence of hunger and
starvation places great demands on the utilitarian, for often more good would be accomplished by
giving food to the hungry than eating it oneself. Second, utilitarianism asks us to do whatever
produces the most good. Far from being a doctrine of the moral minimum, utilitarianism always
asks us to do the maximum.

The other principal disagreement that has plagued utilitarianism centers on the question of
whether we look at the consequences of each individual act–this is called act utilitarianism–or the
consequences that would result from everyone following a particular rule–this is called rule
utilitarianism.

The danger of act utilitarianism is that it may justify some particular acts that most of us
would want to condemn. Imagine a situation in which punishing an innocent person–while
concealing his innocence- would have the greatest overall good consequences. If doing so would
result in the greatest overall amount of pleasure or happiness, and then it would not only be
permitted by act utilitarianism, it would be morally required. Yet there are things we cannot do to
people, even if utility seems to require it.
In response to such difficulties, utilitarians say that, while consequences may justify a
particular act of punishing the innocent, they could never justify living by a rule that permitted
punishing the innocent to produce the greatest utility. Rule utilitarians maintain that we should

1
J.S. Mill writes: “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness
Principle, holds, that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to
produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness,
pain and the privation of pleasure.

2 Jeremy Bentham, taken from An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Ch I, 3).
look at the consequences of adopting a particular rule for everyone, not the consequences of each
individual action. But many feel that it turns into rule-worship. Why should we follow the rule in
those instances where it does not produce the greatest utility?

A critique of utilitarianism
We can first examine the main difference between Aristotle and Mill and the other
utilitarians. What for Aristotle was the starting point for the search for the standard of morality—
the fact that everyone seeks happiness—is for Mill the standard itself.3 This means that Mill does
not take heed of the fact that there is a difference between the two. While it is true that everyone
seeks happiness, it is important to distinguish clearly what it is that will make the person happy.
Mill assumes this without clearly distinguishing the real dynamics of human happiness. Also it is
important to understand that the key to happiness is an understanding of good the good of the
human person.
In relation to the notion of the good, on the metaphysical level, Mill fails to differentiate
the notion of good—as that aspect under which everything is desired—from the notion of pleasure.
The good is not the same as pleasure. For Mill, however, the good remains identified with what
gives pleasure. In the end, in Mill’s ethical system, the pursuit of happiness is equated to a pursuit
of pleasure. This is why his definition of good is hedonistic. Human experience shows, however,
that not everything which is good gives pleasure. For example, a patient has to take some bitter
medicine (in the literal and metaphorical sense) and this does not give pleasure but it is good.
Secondly we have to recognize the difference between real good and apparent good. Sometimes,
the latter can give pleasure but it does not lead the agent to his/her real end. Then it is no good at
all. Aristotle, on the other hand, clearly recognized the distinction between the two. In fact, in the
Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle knew that virtuous action (good action) has to do with pleasure
and pain and moderating one’s behavior in response to these. The good, in the paradigm of
Aristotle, can appear as honorable, pleasant, or useful. And it is the virtuous person who judges
rightly about these things.
Another critique is the fact that human goods are not fully achieved and accomplished at
any point such that persons would have nothing more to do. In this case, the utilitarian slogan
(greatest happiness for the greatest number) becomes meaningless. What is the greatest good in
life for the greatest number of people? Can this be measured? To which persons does utilitarianism
apply? Those born can be happy and achieve the greatest good. What about the unborn? Should
we include them in calculating the greatest happiness?

3 Rhonheimer, 357.
Hedonism

Hedonism comes from the word hedoné, which means pleasure. Hedonism refers to a group
of ethical systems that hold feelings of pleasure or happiness as the highest and final aim of
conduct. Actions which increase the sum of pleasure are thereby constituted right, what increases
pain is wrong. It sounds very similar to Utilitarianism only that this theory puts special emphasis
on pleasure per se as the gauge of morality.

Contemporary hedonists are sometimes classed into egoistic hedonists and altruistic
hedonists. They are distinguished by their answer to this statement: Happiness is the end of
conduct, but whose happiness?
 Egoist answers: the happiness of the agent
 Altruist replies: the happiness of all concerned, or, "the greatest happiness of the greatest
number".

The intrinsic difficulties in creating any decent code of morals on the egoistic principle,
together with the destructive criticism that such attempts encountered, led Hedonists to substitute
the happiness of all concerned for the happiness of the individual. By adopting the happiness of
others as the end, the Hedonist loses his support for his first contention: happiness is the end, that
is, every man desires happiness and can desire nothing else. It is obvious that not everybody desires
the happiness of everybody else.

Another modification was introduced to meet the criticism that, if pleasure is the standard
of right and wrong, sensual indulgence is just as good as the noblest form of self-sacrifice. Some
of the Hedonists replied that not merely the quantity but also the quality of pleasure is to be taken
into account. There are higher and lower pleasures; and the higher are more desirable than the
lower. Thus the hedonistic standard is, displaced since another moral valuation is implied. The
subjective norm, (pleasurable feeling) is replaced by an objective norm which dictates what the
agent ought to pursue. This is the suicide of Hedonism.

Critique of hedonism
Hedonism’s fundamental errors and the unanswerable objections lie in the following:
(1) It rests on a false psychological analysis. What is true is that pleasure depends on the obtaining
of some good. Good is prior to and the cause of the pleasure. The happiness or pleasure of good
conduct is a consequence, not a constituent, of the moral quality of the action.
(2) It falsely supposes that pleasure is the only motive of action. It supports the fallacy that the
pleasurable and the desirable are interchangeable terms.
(3) Granting that pleasure and pain constitute the standard of right and wrong, this standard would
be utterly impractical. Pleasures are not proportional to one another, nor are pains. Besides no
human mind can calculate the quantity of pleasure and pain that will result from a given action.
(4) Egoistic Hedonism reduces all benevolence, self-sacrifice, and love of the right to mere
selfishness.
(5) No general code of morality could be established on the basis of pleasure. Pleasure is essentially
a subjective feeling, and what is more pleasurable for one may be less so for another. Hence, on
hedonistic grounds, it is evident that there could be no permanently and universally valid dividing
line between right and wrong.
(6) Hedonism has no ground for moral obligation, no sanction for duty. If I must pursue my own
happiness, and if conduct which leads to happiness is good, the worst reproach that can be
addressed to me, however base my conduct may be, is that I have made an imprudent choice.

Pragmatism
Pragmatism signifies the insistence on usefulness or practical consequences as a test of
truth. For pragmatists concepts, judgments, and reasoning processes are not representative of
reality. These are merely symbols, and hypotheses devised by man to facilitate the experience of
reality. This experience is the true test of real existence. Thus, Pragmatism sets up action,
satisfaction of needs, realization in conduct, etc., as the standard of truth.

For example, when a person is confronted with the formula "the human soul is immortal",
what should the person do? If he is a Pragmatist, he will not be content to weigh the evidence for
with the case against immortality. He will work out the consequences, the definite differences, and
decide in that way which of the two "works" better. The alternative which works better is true.

Pragmatism regards realism as naïve.4 Pragmatism is obliged, therefore, to test newly-

acquired truth by the standard of truth already in the mind, that is, by personal or individual
experience. According to Pragmatism, a concept, therefore, is true if, when we use it as a tool to
manipulate or handle our experience, the practical results, are satisfactory. It is true if it functions
well; in other words, if it "works". No truth is made and set aside. Experience can be verified
provisionally now, but must be verified again tomorrow, when I acquire a new experience.
Verificability and not verification is the test of experience.

There are no necessary truths, there are no axioms, says Pragmatism, but only postulates.
A judgment is true if it functions in such a way as to explain our experiences, and it continues to
be true only so long as it does explain our experiences. The apparent self-evidence of axioms is
due to a long-established habit: I cannot help thinking that two and two are four because it is a
habit of thinking.

All truths are, therefore, empirical: they are all "man-made". Our judgments are all
personal, in this sense, and based on our own experience, and are subject to the limitations imposed
by the habits. Conclusions are valid only within our experience, and should not be carried beyond
the region of verifiable experience.

Therefore in the ethical system of the Pragmatist, we are obliged to subscribe to the doctrine
of John Stuart Mill that all truth is hypothetical, that "can be" and "cannot be" have reference only
to our experience. There may be, in fact, some remote place where two and two are five, and a
thing can be and not be at the same time.

4 Realism holds that real things, not made by the mind but given in experience, is a standard of truth. Conformity to
reality is a test of truth, and lack of conformity is a proof of falseness. In other words, there is truth if what is in the
mind conforms to the reality outside the mind, not the other way around.
Critique of pragmatism
Pragmatism is highly individualistic. Despite the disclaimers of some of its exponents, it
sets up the principle, "Man is the measure of all things". For if pragmatism means anything, it
means that human consequences, "consequences to you and me", are the test of the meaning and
truth of our concepts, judgments, and reasonings. This completely disregards the objectivity of
truth and it also disregards the common good since it gives more priority to the individual good
and individual judgement.

Pragmatism is also nominalistic. This means that it denies the validity of content of
universal concepts, and rejects the mere possibility of reality. Nominalism again in turn leads to
denying the objective foundations for our ideas and the objective foundations of reality. In the
realm of ethics, this leads to relativism. Pragmatism is also, by implication, sensistic, meaning that
in describing the function of concepts pragmatism restricts that function to sense-experience.
Furthermore, it is idealistic. It makes reality to be co-extensive with experience. Lastly,
pragmatism is, in a sense, anarchistic. Discarding logic, it discards principles, and has no substitute
for them except individual experience.

For an understanding of the additional Ethical Systems (or Ethical Approaches), you may refer to

DeGeorge, Richard “Business Ethics”

Velasquez, Manuel “Business Ethics”

== Found in our libraries.

Although the title of the book refers to business issues, both books have sufficient explanations
of these systems in their conceptual frameworks:

 The Rights Approach

 Justice and Fairness Approach.